Do you buy the claim that an Edwards win in Iowa "helps Clinton?"

[begin_within]

I have heard the talking heads mention that if Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, that helps Hillary. I guess they consider Hillary to be the frontrunner, and Obama to be her closest challenger, and therefore Edwards winning (Obama not winning) puts a damper on Obama's challenge to Hillary. Do you buy this? I say a win by Edwards helps Edwards. Period. It might even make him the frontrunner.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. never trust the talking heads

they are working for their corporate masters.

[aquart]

2. It doesn't help Hillary. It destroys Obama.

That's why it's being put out there.

[Lex]

3. I agree with you.

I think it's pre-spin on a feared Edwards win in Iowa.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. No, it helps Edwards (nt)

[saltpoint]

5. Nope.

[yardwork]

6. Uh, no. An Edwards win would help....Edwards.

[Richard Steele]

7. No. Ridiculous upon its face. nm

[davidinalameda]

8. hell no

Edwards has been in Iowa for the past four years

I'd be surprised if he doesn't win there

[tired_old_fireman]

13. Edwards has spent a whole 2 days more in Iowa than Obama

If Edwards wins Iowa, it is because of Edwards--not because of some made up talking point that he has lived in Iowa.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/28/223528/15

Also, Edwards is moving up in Iowa. If he wins Iowa, the bounce could put him over the top in New Hampshire. At that point, it's a new ballgame.

[davidinalameda]

22. made up talking points?

please

he's been there since the 2004 election laying the ground-work for 2008

[tired_old_fireman]

26. It's a meaningless talking point

Edwards 80 days in Iowa, Obama 78 days in Iowa. How is that living there?

Obama should have an advantage from living in a neighboring state, having the media hype, and having outspent Edwards more than 3 to 1.
If Edwards wins, it's meaningful.

[davidinalameda]

35. so he didn't start his "tour" of Iowa until mid-September?

wrong again

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16962476

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NEWS09/711300415

I'm not knocking him for it

he realized that he has to do well in Iowa since he won't have the money of Obama and Hillary

[babylonsister]

9. Yes, because I can

see where it would weaken Obama, who would then be less of a threat to her in NH. Edwards isn't as much of a threat in NH, so she could forge onward without having to look over her shoulder.

If Edwards wins by a huge margin, that could change the whole scenario.

Sounds logical to me.

[comradebillyboy]

10. It makes it a Hillary-Edwards race

which I think would be very interesting. It takes the bloom off the rose for Obama and makes Edwards more formidable. If Hillary wins the aura of invincibility returns. I expect Hillary to win the nomination but I think a tough primary battle will make her a much better candidate in the general.

[madrchsod]

11. ahhh-no

[blogslut]

12. Who are these people that believe this?

I am sad to say that the winner of the Iowa caucus usually ends up being the nominee. I suppose that some times a second-placer or third-placer can shoot up to the top after Iowa but... well, maybe I am stoopid on primary history.

Anybody got any examples of an Iowa winner that did not end up being the nominee?

[papau]

24. 4 of 7 Iowa "winners" became the nominee since 72 (exclude "uncommitted" and "unopposed")

1976 Uncommitted won with 37%, Carter had 28%, Bayh had 13%

1980 Carter 59%, Kennedy 31%,

1984 Mondale 49%, Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado 16.5%

1988 Gephardt 31%, Simon 27%, Dukakis 22%

1992 Harkin 76%, Uncommitted 12%

1996 President Clinton ran unopposed for the nomination.

2000 Gore 63%, Bradley 35%.

2004 Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%,

so in last 9 presidential runs, one needs to exclude both losing to uncommitted in 76 and running unopposed in 96. That leaves 7 races, one where a sitting president - Carter - won Iowa and nomination, plus 3 others - Mondale, Gore, and Kerry.

[unapatriciated]

27. damn you beat me to it

I'm a slower proof reader and I believe the last two did win :toast:

[papau]

32. :-) I understand - my thumb typing w/corrections leaves many a post "late" :-)

[LiberalFighter]

30. And before 1972 Iowa was nothing! Right?

[papau]

31. from 1900 to 1968 Iowa was not "first" and therefore not as important n/t

[unapatriciated]

25. here you go

http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-pattern-holds-only-thing-democrat.html

Here is a breakdown of the winners of all the Iowa caucuses since 1972, when it first moved to become first in the nation:

*
1972 - Iowa Caucus winner: Edmund Muskie. He neither became the party candidate nor the President.
*
1976 - Iowa Caucus winner: No Winner, the largest vote went to “Uncommitted” (the eventual President, Democrat Jimmy Carter, only got 28% of the vote)
*
1980 - Iowa Caucus winner: Jimmy Carter - lost in general election to Ronald Reagan
*
1984 - Iowa Caucus winner: Walter Mondale - lost in general election as Ronald Reagan re-elected.
*
1988 - Iowa Caucus winner: Richard Gephart was not the Party’s eventual nominee.
*
1992 - Iowa Caucus winner: Tom Harkin in a landslide victory (eventual party nominee and next President, Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote)
*
1996 - Iowa Caucus winner: Since Bill Clinton ran unopposed in the caucus, Iowa caucus-goers couldn’t help but vote for the eventual winner.
*
2000 - Iowa Caucus winner: Al Gore - did not become the next President of the U.S.
*
2004 - Iowa Caucus winner: John Kerry - did not become the next President

[Owl]

14. No. That's nonsense.

[Guaranteed]

15. Yeah, because the best way to get the nomination is by losing. nt

[OHdem10]

16. Some try to imply a loss to Edwards would not be as embarassing

as a loss to Obama. Some pipedream that Obama win, means he
wins the next two states. Not necessarily. McCain may just
draw Independents in NH. This means HRC gets Traditional Dems
and wins.

I maintain it is different this time and predictions are weak at
the best.

Heck a poll out this AM shows Edwards has shot up 6 pts in NH.

I think we all know HRC can lose the first two and still win
the nomination.

My prayer is for John Edwards to be in there as long as possible.

He has pulled HRC and Obama from the Right of Center over to a tiny
bit left. Keep Him in there. He is the real Democrat in the Race.
This was reported by Major Garrett Fox News tonight. He reported
that Edwards message is resonating with Iowaans and you can tell
this is the case because the past week HRC and Obama are beginning
to sound more and more like Edwards.

[rwheeler31]

17. This is stupid Pat B crap.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Yes, for the obvious reason that Edwards isnt competing in NH, so if Edwards shuts out Obama in Iowa

Then Hillary wins New Hampshire, just as Bill Clinton did to Paul Tsongas
who stole the thunder from Bill's primary opponents. The OP is absolutely
right. The only way an Edwards win does not help Hillary is if Obama wins
NH, where Edwards is not competing. Otherwise it knocks Obama out of the
race. Edwards is looking ahead to SC. Without Obama in the race Hillary
wins SC, a very pro-establishment caucus of voters there despite the fact
that they should be natural allies of Edwards. I'd bet money on this scenario if Edwards wins and Obama loses ground in NH as a result.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. The only way to shut out Clinton is for Edwards tto win Iowa and Obama to come in second

Thereby allowing Obama to win NH by penalizing Clinton in the expectations game.

Then they tag team each other and either Edwards or Obama drops out in a
brokered move before the major states come in play, once one or the other
has established as the frontrunner against Hillary.

Ideally the result would be Edwards-Obama '08, the least bad of the
possible candidate options to come out of this race.

If Edwards wins Iowa and takes "change" votes from Obama as a result in NH, then Clinton wins there and wins in SC. Against just Edwards or just Obama, Clinton wins the early states (I could be wrong about this last one
but certainly if one of them dropped out this late, half their votes would
go to Clinton putting her over the top.)

[onehandle]

19. An Iowa win = Edwards as nominee. nt

[tokenlib]

21. It depends on Obama..

If he stays in the race it helps Hillary. If he pulls out, it dooms Hillary as most Obama supporters have Edwards as their second choice.

[LibDemAlways]

23. Any Edwards win helps Edwards. The talking heads

are doing everything they can to make Edwards go away. They'll be doing contortions if they have to explain a victory in Iowa.

[Zynx]

28. It helps Hillary by finishing Obama off.

Obama's and Edwards compete for a zero-sum vote. An Edwards win eats into Obama's anti-Hillary vote.

[LiberalFighter]

29. Spin Spin Spin... Recycle Rinse Spin Spin Spin

[mmonk]

33. Call me crazy but I would say it helps Edwards.

[tom_paine]

34. Ridiculous and Bushie-sounding. "The extra deaths means we're winning" bullshit

Our MSM is a national disgrace, pure and simple. It is a betrayal of everything the Old American Republic stood for.

[Roxy66]

36. Tweety needs to shut up for the next 11 mos....and stop blabbering

[Nimrod2005]

37. NO NO NO, BEACAUSE: they all gave Edwards zero chance just 4-5 days ago!!!

I hate these people

[robcon]

38. Best result for Clinton: a win, and Edwards second.

It is important for Clinton's success in getting the nomination for John Edwards to survive in until Feb. 5, to keep him from "dumping" most of his supporters onto Obama.

So the best result would be for Edwards to do second best until Feb 5.